[IDEM libro tertio responsorum. ] §22.4.3.prRespondit repetita quidem die cautionem interponi non debuisse, sed falsi crimen quantum ad eos, qui in hoc consenserunt, contractum non uideri, cum inter praesentes et conuenientes res actitata sit magisque debitor quam creditor deliquerit.
[THE SAME from the third book of Responses.] He replied that, indeed, a guarantee ought not to have been executed with a repeated date, but that, as far as concerns those who consented to this, the crime of forgery does not seem to have been committed, since the transaction was carried out between parties present and agreeing, and the debtor rather than the creditor was at fault.